HARI NARAYAN Vs. AWADH NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Suit No. 112/1996, Awadh Narayan Singh v. Hari Narayan Singh, was filed for the relief of specific performance of contract. Plaint case in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell his total 1/4th share in plots no. 153, 168 and 314 situated in village Dhamahi for Rs. 85,000/- to plaintiff and executed agreement to sell dated 31.7.1995 and received Rs. 40,000/- as advance consideration at the time of registration of said deed, which was registered on 01.07.1996. It was agreed between the parties that defendant will receive remaining consideration of Rs. 45,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed. Plaintiff has been ready to perform his part of contract and asked defendant in January, 1996 to reach at Sub-Registrar Office, Chunar for execution of sale deed, but defendant was not ready and absented. Then, plaintiff had given notice dated 19.2.1996 for reaching at Sub-Registrar Office for execution of sale deed on 8.3.1996, after which he reached in Sub-Registrar Office along with remaining sale consideration but defendant has not reached. Since plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and defendant is not ready for the same, therefore, plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of said contract.

(2.) Defendant had filed written statement in original suit, in which he denied the plaint averment including the execution of agreement to sell. He further pleaded that plaintiff had promised him to get the loan sanctioned from bank, and on this pretext he had obtained signature and thumb impression of defendant, but the defendant had not executed any agreement to sell, therefore, suit of plaintiff is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After framing issues and accepting adduced evidences, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mirzapur had decreed the suit by its judgment dated 27.5.2011, by which suit was decreed for specific performance of contract. Trial court had appreciated the evidences of plaintiff and defendant, and specifically discussed the oral evidence of defendant, where he specifically admitted about putting signatures on documents. Trial court had believed evidences adduced by plaintiff and disbelieved evidences of defendant (present appellant) mentioning its reasons, and thereafter gave specific finding of fact that plaintiff's case is proved and defendant had executed registered agreement to sell as alleged in plaint.